I don't think Majad was talking about firing her, I think he was saying if she felt she was only voted in because she's attractive and ticks a political correctness box, she might consider stepping down/declining. Not force her to resign because she might have been voted for because of those reasons (not exactly something that can be determined without considerable, pointless effort).

Alright, but "I hope she quits" comes off a lot stronger than that.

Also, didn't loads of people think Obama wouldn't be able to hack it because he was too young or hadn't served in the army and various qualities like that which are unrelated to presidential competency? People will be cynical about and turn their noses up at anything that threatens the status quo.

I do recall a lot of people saying wasn't experienced enough. Can't say I remember things like his age specifically, but then again I didn't follow politics that closely. Though I would say that even though age and experience in the army aren't really important for being a good president, they are at least tangentially related to holding the highest office of the land that also doubles as commander in chief. In general these attacks seem to be made on points that are superficially related to the office even though they fall apart upon closer examination.

But yes of course, people in general like to use unrelated things to attack a person when facts aren't on their side.

It's an empty victory really, in a society that largely treats women like damsel's still. A bisexual woman is typically seen, by the intolerants, as a victim of confusion, so they are pitied by those who care negatively, they are accepted into the LGBT community with open arms, and the 'straight-but-don't-care' crowd is like "AWESOME YOU GO GIRL/ THAT'S HOT!"

Ever met an openly bisexual man? Probably not. Because the intolerants see them as perverted deviants, the LGBT community treats them like shit, and the 'straight-but-don't-care' crowd treats them like sissies.

So when I see the first openly bisexual MALE politician, then I'll believe society has become more enlightened.

To be honest, I have never understood bisexuality. I understand that for whatever reason people are born gay, but if that's true, isn't bisexuality a choice? It's kind of like saying, yeah I'm gay, but hey this is fun too!

In the cnn's video, she even dodged the "Do you believe in G-d?" question..

This honestly is the more surprising element. While the U.S. has a history of some GLBT representation in politics, it's almost unheard of for a candidate to not express a belief in some variation of God.

---------- Post added 2012-11-24 at 12:59 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes

To be honest, I have never understood bisexuality. I understand that for whatever reason people are born gay, but if that's true, isn't bisexuality a choice? It's kind of like saying, yeah I'm gay, but hey this is fun too! Maybe I'm completely wrong here. Maybe you can be born bisexual?

And of course the obligatory...Not that there's anything wrong with it!

What is there to "understand" about it? It's the state of having the capacity to find either men or women sexually attractive. Some bisexuals have a strong preference over one gender or another, but some don't. I had a roommate back in my university days, for example, who seemed like a 50/50 bisexual to me. He dated men and women almost equally, and it seemed like a complete roll of the dice as far as who would catch his eye when we'd go out to the bar.

Speaking as a gay man myself, I'd agree with Gheld's general comment. In the early stages of coming out, many gay men go through a phase where they identified as bisexual. It's an easier pill to swallow for one's self, originally.

Eventually the facade fades with time, but this unfortunately causes many gay men to immediately assume that any bisexual man is just a closeted gay man. And as far as the straight community goes, straight women tend not to be that drawn to bisexual men for the same reason. It's almost seen as a hit on the guy's masculinity, and they often can't shake the paranoia that he might be gay.

Bisexual women, on the other hand, don't really seem to struggle that much. A woman can claim she's bisexual without it affecting her femininity, and straight guys tend not to get paranoid over whether the woman might really be a lesbian.

Politicians are there to represent people. Look at it this way. You have a pool of 100,000 blocks. Half of them are blue. A quarter are red and the last quarter are yellow. Now if you select them on their merits for building and assume their color has no basis on said merit wouldn't you expect the 100 you selected to be more or less the same make up as the full pool? Its the same with who we elect. When the people who are in charge don't match up with national demographics to the extent we see now that's a sign there is some serious bias having an effect.

No, be because RNG is RNG. It's entirely possible for all the red and none of the blue to be highly meritorious. Further, merit is not limited to RNG. Sure, some level of quality may be randomly determined to be higher in some case than others, but from that point onward, merit is earned.

There is no functional correlation between merit and population diversity. And as I already pointed out, leadership is elected on the basis of ideological lines, not objective merit, only subjective ideological alignments. And there is simply no guarantee that ideology is evenly distributed among the population segments.

Originally Posted by Masark

People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.

Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
Blizzard removed my subscription from WoD's features, it'll be added sometime later.
And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

It's entirely possible for all the red and none of the blue to be highly meritorious.

Except the odds are stupidly high against that. There are thousands of elected officials and they're overwhelmingly white men.

Sure, some level of quality may be randomly determined to be higher in some case than others, but from that point onward, merit is earned.

And if we assume that skin color or gender don't determine merit then there has to be something in effect causing the discrepancy we see.

There is no functional correlation between merit and population diversity. And as I already pointed out, leadership is elected on the basis of ideological lines, not objective merit, only subjective ideological alignments. And there is simply no guarantee that ideology is evenly distributed among the population segments.

I'm honestly a little confused how you're not getting this. If skin color has no bearing on ideological merit yet we still select almost nothing but white men (an incredibly privileged class) how is it not blindly clear we're still laboring under systemic bias?

---------- Post added 2012-11-24 at 08:53 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Rukentuts

So when there are more male engineers than female engineers, that means it's clearly sexism...right?

Actually yes. That's a great example of systemic sexism. Women are routinely turned away from and discouraged from the kinds of games and likes that would send them towards engineering.

It is relevant. If someone describes themself as merely straight or merely homosexual then there is no sliding scale. If someone says they're bisexual then a sliding scale becomes relevant to determine how gay or straight they are. But for those (the majority of people), that only identify with one sexuality, then the sliding scale is both irrelevant and inapplicable.

You can't force people to be considered bisexual because of an arbitrary set of "factors". Sexuality is something that is completely self-identified.

You do of course realize that you can be attracted to the same gender while still finding the thought of sexual interaction with that gender repulsive? When people say "Everyone is to some degree bisexual" They aren't saying "everyone has the tendency to engage in gay sex!"

Speaking as a gay man myself, I'd agree with Gheld's general comment. In the early stages of coming out, many gay men go through a phase where they identified as bisexual. It's an easier pill to swallow for one's self, originally.

Eventually the facade fades with time, but this unfortunately causes many gay men to immediately assume that any bisexual man is just a closeted gay man.

Well, as a gay person, and a part of the LGBT community, i don't know what you're talking about. This doesn't happen in my country, at least.